What is Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

When an assessee borrows capital and diverts funds, often interest-free, to a sister concern or related party, the interest paid on such borrowed capital may not be deductible under Section 36(1)(iii) if commercial expediency for the assessee's own business is not established. The burden is on the assessee to prove that the borrowed funds were used for its own business purposes.

How many judgments cite Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. v. CIT?

56 judgments on BharatTax cite Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. v. CIT (187 ITR 363), spanning 2010 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 36(1)(iii), Section 143(3), Section 35D, Section 37(1), Section 40(a)(ia), Section 153A(1)(b).

Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. v. CIT (187 ITR 363)

BANSAL PATHWAYS DAMOH KATNI P LTD,BHOPAL vs. DCIT 1(1), BHOOPAL

The appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 851/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshibansal Pathways Damoh Dcit-1(1), बनाम Katni Private Limited, Bhopal / 15Th Floor Bansal One, Vs. Rani Kamlapati Railway Station, Bhopal

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253

…isions:- Page 4 of 10 Bansal Pathways Damoh Katni Pvt. Ltd ITA No.851/Ind/2024 - A.Y. 2018-19 1. Patel Filter Ltd. vs. CIT [2003] 264 ITR 21 (Guj.) 2. CIT vs. Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. [1982] 137 ITR 389 (Guj) 3. CIT vs. H. R. Sugar Factory Pvt. Ltd. [1991] 187 ITR 363 (All.) 4. Indian Saving Products Ltd. vs. CIT [2004] 265 ITR 250 (Raj.) 5. Caldern Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT [2004] 265 ITR 244 (Kal.) 6. CIT vs. Bombay Samachar Ltd. [1969] 74 ITR 723 (Bom.) 7. Somasundram & Bro. [1999] 238 ITR 939 (Madras) 8. Elmer Havell Electrics vs. CIT [2005] 277 ITR 549 (Del.) 9. Since, the assessee had diverted it…

DCIT, C-V, LUDHIANA vs. M/S HERO CYCLES LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 588/CHANDI/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 588/Chd/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 The DCIT C-V, Ludhiana बनाम M/s Hero Cycles Ltd. Hero Nagar, G.T. Road Ludhiana स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAACH4073P अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 473/Chd/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 M/s Hero Cycles Ltd. Hero Nagar, G.T. Road Ludhiana बनाम The ACIT C-V, Ludhiana स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAACH4073P

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, Shri Ashish Aggarwal &For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…held in the case of CIT Vs. Orissa Cement Ltd. 258 ITR 365 (Del) that the court cannot shut its eyes to reality. Had the advances not been made, borrowings would have been less. Similar was the view held in the case of CIT Vs. HP Sugar Factory Put. Ltd. (All)187 ITR 363. 7.7 The assessee has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of SA Builders. The facts in the two cases are completely different. The subsidiary company of the assessee, M/s Munjal Hospitality Ltd. is engaged in Real Estate business while the assessee is engaged in Manufacturing of bicycles. The two are completely unrelated. Moreove…

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 366/RJT/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. C. Thacker, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia,Ld.CIT (DR)

Section 36(1)(iii)

…ted in (2002) 258 ITR 365 (Delhi). (vii)The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. V.I. Baby & Co., reported in (2002) 254 ITR 248 (Kerala). (viii)The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. H.R. Sugar Factory (P.) Ltd., reported in (1991) 187 ITR 363 (Allahabad). (ix) Decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of A. Murali & Co. (P.) Ltd. V. ACIT, reported in (2013) 357 ITR 580 (Madras). 18. The ld. CIT -DR for the revenue, by referring to the above judgements, stated that in the assessee`s case, there are mixed funds and the assessee could not establish any commercial expediency. It i…

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 236/RJT/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. C. Thacker, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia,Ld.CIT (DR)

Section 36(1)(iii)

…ted in (2002) 258 ITR 365 (Delhi). (vii)The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. V.I. Baby & Co., reported in (2002) 254 ITR 248 (Kerala). (viii)The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. H.R. Sugar Factory (P.) Ltd., reported in (1991) 187 ITR 363 (Allahabad). (ix) Decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of A. Murali & Co. (P.) Ltd. V. ACIT, reported in (2013) 357 ITR 580 (Madras). 18. The ld. CIT -DR for the revenue, by referring to the above judgements, stated that in the assessee`s case, there are mixed funds and the assessee could not establish any commercial expediency. It i…

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 235/RJT/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. C. Thacker, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia,Ld.CIT (DR)

Section 36(1)(iii)

…ted in (2002) 258 ITR 365 (Delhi). (vii)The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. V.I. Baby & Co., reported in (2002) 254 ITR 248 (Kerala). (viii)The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. H.R. Sugar Factory (P.) Ltd., reported in (1991) 187 ITR 363 (Allahabad). (ix) Decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of A. Murali & Co. (P.) Ltd. V. ACIT, reported in (2013) 357 ITR 580 (Madras). 18. The ld. CIT -DR for the revenue, by referring to the above judgements, stated that in the assessee`s case, there are mixed funds and the assessee could not establish any commercial expediency. It i…

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 234/RJT/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. C. Thacker, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia,Ld.CIT (DR)

Section 36(1)(iii)

…ted in (2002) 258 ITR 365 (Delhi). (vii)The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. V.I. Baby & Co., reported in (2002) 254 ITR 248 (Kerala). (viii)The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. H.R. Sugar Factory (P.) Ltd., reported in (1991) 187 ITR 363 (Allahabad). (ix) Decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of A. Murali & Co. (P.) Ltd. V. ACIT, reported in (2013) 357 ITR 580 (Madras). 18. The ld. CIT -DR for the revenue, by referring to the above judgements, stated that in the assessee`s case, there are mixed funds and the assessee could not establish any commercial expediency. It i…

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 233/RJT/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. C. Thacker, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia,Ld.CIT (DR)

Section 36(1)(iii)

…ted in (2002) 258 ITR 365 (Delhi). (vii)The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. V.I. Baby & Co., reported in (2002) 254 ITR 248 (Kerala). (viii)The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. H.R. Sugar Factory (P.) Ltd., reported in (1991) 187 ITR 363 (Allahabad). (ix) Decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of A. Murali & Co. (P.) Ltd. V. ACIT, reported in (2013) 357 ITR 580 (Madras). 18. The ld. CIT -DR for the revenue, by referring to the above judgements, stated that in the assessee`s case, there are mixed funds and the assessee could not establish any commercial expediency. It i…

KANDLA EXPORT CORPORATION,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-2(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the summaries and concise ground No

ITA 155/RJT/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am.& Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A No.135/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Kandla Exports Corporation Income – Tax, Central Circle – 2(3), Plot No. 18, Maitri Bhavan, 3Rd Floor, A – 305, Aayakar Bhavan, Sector – 8, Gandhidham, Ahmedabad – 370201 Kutch- 370201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfk1906F (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A No.136/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) The Deputy Commissioner Of Kandla Exports Corporation Vs Income – Tax, Central Circle – Plot No. 18, Maitri Bhavan, . 2(3), 3Rd Floor, A – 305, Aayakar Sector – 8, Gandhidham, Bhavan, Ahmedabad - 370201 Kutch- 370201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfk1906F (Assessee) (Respondent)

…d in (2002) 258 ITR 365 (Delhi). (vii)The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. V.I. Baby & Co., reported in (2002) 254 ITR 248 (Kerala). (viii)The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. H.R. Sugar Factory (P.) Ltd., reported in (1991) 187 ITR 363 (Allahabad). (ix) Decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of A. Murali & Co. (P.) Ltd. V. ACIT, reported in (2013) 357 ITR 580 (Madras). 18. The ld. CIT -DR for the revenue, by referring to the above judgements, stated that in the assessee`s case, there are mixed funds and the assessee could not establish any commercial expediency. It…

M/S RAJ KUMAR SINGH & CO.,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1288/LKW/1993[1990-91]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2024AY 1990-91

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

…ates to a closed group of persons. The funds so borrowed have been diverted for non business purposes of giving advances to its partners. The facts of the present case are broadly similar to those in the case of CIT vs. H.R. Sugar Factory (P) Ltd. reported in 187 ITR 363 in which their Lordship of Allahabad High Court held that "the assessee was not a finance company. It was engaged in the manufacture of sugar. No business purpose was served by the advances to its directors. The amount of interest payable in each year on account of the loans to the directors was very large and this fact could not be glossed over…

IHHR HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 04, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3109/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usm/S. Ihhr Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Addl. Cit, 32/7, Samalka, Nh 8, Range – 04, New Delhi – 110 037. New Delhi. (Pan : Aaaci9385B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ranjan Chopra, Ca Revenue By : Shri Javed Akhtar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.05.2024 Date Of Order : 04.06.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)-35, New Delhi Dated 13.02.2018 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. That The Revenue Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Making Disallowance Of ‘Project Pending Capitalization Written Off’ Expenses, Amounting To Rs.7,71,40,000/- & Treating These Expenses To Be Of Capital Nature. 2. That The Revenue Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Disallowing Interest Of Rs.5,40,62,940/- U/S 36(1)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. (Revised Ground). 3. That The Revenue Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Disallowing A Sum Of Rs.9,61,305/- On Account Of Claim Of Roc Fee Under Section 35D Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2 .”

For Appellant: Shri Ranjan Chopra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT DR

Section 35DSection 36(1)(iii)

…nses written off should be allowed as business expenditure. 4.1 The AO observed that the issue of capital vs. revenue expenditure has been examined and discussed in the decision by Hon'ble Delhi high Court in the case of Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. vs. CIT 232 ITR 639 (Del). The AO further held that the facts of the present case are different than the case law relied upon by the assessee that is M/s. Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd. vs. CIT 333 ITR 18. In that case, the project could not see the light of the day since the assessee company could not procure the allotment of the requisite land from the government.…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S HERITAGE HOSPITAL LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 5629/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Anand Kumar Pandey, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kumar Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 40A(3)

…tion 36(1)(iii). The AO has nowhere in his order established the fact that the assessee has diverted its interest bearing fund to its sister concern and hence his reliance on the cases of Abhisekh Industries Ltd 286 ITR 1(P&H) and H R Sugar Factory Pvt Ltd 187 ITR 363 (All)and other similar cases, do not come to his aid. We therefore are of the considered opinion that the CIT(A) decision to delete the addition needs no interference. The ground no 9 of the Revenue is accordingly dismissed. 63. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No. 5629/DEL/2016 is dismissed. The order is pronounced in the open…

ACIT 3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 798/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Maharashtra Airport Deputy Commissioner Of Development Company Income Tax, Ltd., Circle (3)(2)(1), 6Th Floor, Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Vs. World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcm9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy/Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Maharashtra Airport Income Tax-(3)(2)(1), Development Co. Ltd., Vs. 12Th Floor, Room No.608/674, 6Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nagpal, D.R

Section 80I

…Ds are made out of the surplus funds or out of the borrowed funds of the assessee and ignoring the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. v/s. CIT (1987), 167 ITR 742 and CIT v/s. H. R. Sugar Factory Pvt. Ltd., 187 ITR 363, in which, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court had observed that the interest paid on the borrowed capital can be allowed only when loans were utilized in the accounting year for the assessee's own business and part of interest which was related to non- business purpose is not allowable expenditure? 1b Whether on the facts and circumstances of the…

MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 522/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Maharashtra Airport Deputy Commissioner Of Development Company Income Tax, Ltd., Circle (3)(2)(1), 6Th Floor, Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Vs. World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcm9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy/Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Maharashtra Airport Income Tax-(3)(2)(1), Development Co. Ltd., Vs. 12Th Floor, Room No.608/674, 6Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nagpal, D.R

Section 80I

…Ds are made out of the surplus funds or out of the borrowed funds of the assessee and ignoring the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. v/s. CIT (1987), 167 ITR 742 and CIT v/s. H. R. Sugar Factory Pvt. Ltd., 187 ITR 363, in which, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court had observed that the interest paid on the borrowed capital can be allowed only when loans were utilized in the accounting year for the assessee's own business and part of interest which was related to non- business purpose is not allowable expenditure? 1b Whether on the facts and circumstances of the…

MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 521/MUM/2019[2088-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2088-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Maharashtra Airport Deputy Commissioner Of Development Company Income Tax, Ltd., Circle (3)(2)(1), 6Th Floor, Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Vs. World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcm9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy/Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Maharashtra Airport Income Tax-(3)(2)(1), Development Co. Ltd., Vs. 12Th Floor, Room No.608/674, 6Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nagpal, D.R

Section 80I

…Ds are made out of the surplus funds or out of the borrowed funds of the assessee and ignoring the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. v/s. CIT (1987), 167 ITR 742 and CIT v/s. H. R. Sugar Factory Pvt. Ltd., 187 ITR 363, in which, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court had observed that the interest paid on the borrowed capital can be allowed only when loans were utilized in the accounting year for the assessee's own business and part of interest which was related to non- business purpose is not allowable expenditure? 1b Whether on the facts and circumstances of the…

ACIT-3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 7498/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 80I

…Ds are made out of the surplus funds or out of the borrowed funds of the assessee and ignoring the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. v/s. CIT (1987), 167 ITR 742 and CIT v/s. H. R. Sugar Factory Pvt. Ltd., 187 ITR 363, in which, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court had observed that the interest paid on the borrowed capital can be allowed only when loans were utilized in the accounting year for the assessee's own business and part of interest which was related to non- business purpose is not allowable expenditure? 1b Whether on the facts and circumstances of the c…

DCIT 3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPEMENT CO. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 7258/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 80I

…Ds are made out of the surplus funds or out of the borrowed funds of the assessee and ignoring the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. v/s. CIT (1987), 167 ITR 742 and CIT v/s. H. R. Sugar Factory Pvt. Ltd., 187 ITR 363, in which, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court had observed that the interest paid on the borrowed capital can be allowed only when loans were utilized in the accounting year for the assessee's own business and part of interest which was related to non- business purpose is not allowable expenditure? 1b Whether on the facts and circumstances of the c…

DCIT 3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPEMENT CO. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 3704/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Maharashtra Airport Deputy Commissioner Of Development Company Income Tax, Ltd., Circle (3)(2)(1), 6Th Floor, Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Vs. World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcm9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy/Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Maharashtra Airport Income Tax-(3)(2)(1), Development Co. Ltd., Vs. 12Th Floor, Room No.608/674, 6Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nagpal, D.R

Section 80I

…Ds are made out of the surplus funds or out of the borrowed funds of the assessee and ignoring the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. v/s. CIT (1987), 167 ITR 742 and CIT v/s. H. R. Sugar Factory Pvt. Ltd., 187 ITR 363, in which, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court had observed that the interest paid on the borrowed capital can be allowed only when loans were utilized in the accounting year for the assessee's own business and part of interest which was related to non- business purpose is not allowable expenditure? 1b Whether on the facts and circumstances of the…

MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3682/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 80I

…Ds are made out of the surplus funds or out of the borrowed funds of the assessee and ignoring the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. v/s. CIT (1987), 167 ITR 742 and CIT v/s. H. R. Sugar Factory Pvt. Ltd., 187 ITR 363, in which, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court had observed that the interest paid on the borrowed capital can be allowed only when loans were utilized in the accounting year for the assessee's own business and part of interest which was related to non- business purpose is not allowable expenditure? 1b Whether on the facts and circumstances of the c…

M/S. RMZ HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 954/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 234Section 255Section 255(3)Section 36

…to be proved that a bona fide loan had been granted in favour of a sister concern. It was, therefore, its duty to place requisite materials on record”. 14.5 This aspect of the matter has also been considered in the case of CIT v. H.R. Sugar Factory Pvt. Ltd., 187 ITR 363, wherein the Allahabad High Court held (page 370): ‘’The court cannot shut its eyes to realities. What has actually happened is visible to the naked eye. The assessee, a private limited company closely held by three family groups, is made to lend huge amounts (up to 23 lakhs of rupees as per the compromise arrived at between the assessee and the…

DCIT,C-11(1), NEW DELHI vs. HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1982/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 40a

…Ltd. [1987] 165 ITR 51 (SC) - Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 177 ITR 377 (SC) - Shriram Refrigeration Industries Ltd. v. CIT: 127 ITR 746 (Del HC) - Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. vs. CIT : 136 ITR 340 (Del) - Addl. CIT vs. Shama Engine Valves Ltd. : 138 ITR 217 (Del) - CIT vs. Bhai Sunder Dass & Sons P. Ltd. : 158 ITR 195 (Del) - CIT vs. Lumax Industries Ltd. : 173 Taxman 390 (Del) - Shriram Pistons & Rings Ltd. vs. CIT : 171 Taxman 81 (Del) - CIT vs. Shri Ram Pistons and Rings Ltd. : 220 CTR 404 (Del) Goodyear India Ltd. vs. ITO : 73 ITD 189 (Del)(TM) - ITO vs. Shivani Locks : 118 TTJ 467 (Del) - Clima…

Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. v. CIT

What is Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. v. CIT

BANSAL PATHWAYS DAMOH KATNI P LTD,BHOPAL vs. DCIT 1(1), BHOOPAL

DCIT, C-V, LUDHIANA vs. M/S HERO CYCLES LTD., LUDHIANA

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

KANDLA EXPORT CORPORATION,,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-2(3),, AHMEDABAD

M/S RAJ KUMAR SINGH & CO.,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

IHHR HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 04, NEW DELHI

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S HERITAGE HOSPITAL LTD.,, NEW DELHI

ACIT 3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

ACIT-3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD., MUMBAI

DCIT 3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPEMENT CO. LTD, MUMBAI

DCIT 3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPEMENT CO. LTD, MUMBAI

MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

M/S. RMZ HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

DCIT,C-11(1), NEW DELHI vs. HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,, NEW DELHI